SAIFUDDINBHAI TURABALI MAMUWALA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPT GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU FORT ST GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts to the appeals are common respondents are same; questions involved are identical. THEre was joint trial common judgment by the trial court, joint hearing of the appeals and disposal by a common judgment of the lower appellate Court.

(2.) SUITS were filed by the appellants in each of the appeals for a declaration that they were not liable to pay Urban Land tax as per the provisions of the Urban Land Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", as they held the properties mentioned in the respective schedules to the plaint as tenants in common; and for permanent injunctions restraining, the respondents from collecting any such tax. The suits were decreed by the trial court. But on appeal by the respondents, the decision of the trial Court was reversed and the appeals were allowed and the suits were dismissed. On merits, both the courts below found in favour of the appellants. But on the question of maintainability while the trial court held that the suits were maintainable, the lower appellate court found that the Act was a complete Code in itself and that civil suits were barred under Section 38 of the Act. Aggrieved, the present Second Appeals have been filed. At the time of admission, the following common substantial question of law was framed for consideration in the Second Appeals. "While under Muslim Personal Law; of inheritance the heirs hold the property with their crystallized shares not holding the same as agents and managers for each other, if such position stands altered if they purchase the property jointly in their names""

(3.) SO far as the substantial question of law raised at the time of admission is concerned, I may immediately refer to the decision of this Court in Ameena Bi alias Sahebzadi v. Asst. Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli North (92 L.W. 103) wherein Natarajan, J. (as he then was) held that in a matter arising under the Urban Land Tax Act inheritance by the heirs of an owner upon his death was as tenants in common and that absence of metes and bounds was of no consequence and that assessment jointly upon all the heirs was not legal. The learned Judge held that their share in the property was crystallised and inheritance had taken place co instanti the original owner died. Having regard to this established position, it has to be held that the appellants were not liable to be taxed for their holding, under the Act.